Interesting article on homosexuality

[Mr. Boyce 13]

Well, then, what's the answer?

 

Are you born that way?

 

or

 

Do you develop that way?

[qwazse 4342]

The answer: yes.

 

The real question: does it matter?

 

For example, some colleagues are busy learning how to coax adult stem cells into regeneration. If, after years of hard work, it manages to grow back a missing leg, it doesn't matter if you are born that way or lost it in battle. We all would probably want you to get a missing leg.

 

However, the lot of us (who can read this blog) are born without wings. Not sure the majority of us would countenance trying to grow a pair -- regardless if on some level we could argue there's a natural tendancy in some humans to want to fly. We can argue 'till we're blue in the face about if that tendancy is innate or acquired.

 

Likewise resolving how much sexual preference is inherited or acquired does not help us deal with wether we should confer rights and privelages on any particular preference.

[Trevorum 24]

Beav, I'd argue that religion does very much tell people what to think. That's exactly why we have suicide bombers.

[skeptic 993]

Trevorum;

 

I would say it is more interpretation of "religion" skews some people's thinking. There is no indication that the suicide bombers' religion says kill people; it is their warped understanding of the writings, or the misguided directions by their leaders.

 

 

[packsaddle 753]

Again I am reminded of that wonderful quote. "The purpose of religion isn't to bring people together."

That said, I am sympathetic to Beavah's front end comments about train wrecks and politically and emotionally-charged topics. As for that sin stuff...back to religion I guess - it seems to support Trevorum's claim.

 

"The 5% was taken from Packsaddle's hypothetical."

I can't seem to find where I introduced any hypotheticals whatsoever...vol_scouter, you lost me on that one.

[vol_scouter 365]

The article cited by DanKroh by Jenny, Roesler, & Poyer is a retrospective chart review. The authors correctly discuss the limitations of retrospective studies. The determination of the sexual offender was by the medical record which would not be collected under the rigors of a prospective study. They conclude that the data for the number of homosexual offenders (0% - 3.1%) is consistent with the actual prevalence in the population (note that the study Dan quotes here did the same thing that I did - used the prevalence). However, the mean age of the victims is 6.1 years with a range of 1 - 17 years. Thus, it mixes pedophilia and ephebophilia. The older article by A. Nicholas Groth, Ph.D., and H. Jean Birnbaum, B.A. is actually looking at pedophilia primarily since most of the boys are pre-pubertal so it has no bearing on my points. I did not read the editorial since by definition of editorial, it has a point of view.

 

I remain unconvinced that a definitive and conclusive set of studies has been done to prove that the rate of homosexual offenders committing ephebophilia is equal to the prevalence of homosexuality in the population. That is the key question as far as risk to youth is concerned. The issue is so charged at this time, I doubt that rigorous scientific studies can be performed.

 

Beevah, your comments are accurate as is usual (though not always ).

[Novice_Cubmaster 10]

For a group that bans homosexuals, we sure seem to be fascinated by discussions about homosexuality. Almost a fixation. I'm sure there's a Freudian explanation.

 

NC

[DanKroh 11]

vol_scouter,

 

I don't think many researchers make the distinction between pedophilia and ephebophilia, because the distinction is largely an artificial one. The pathology is the same. If you feel these studies have not satisfied your question about ephebophilia, I doubt you will find any that do.

 

Although there is a lot more legitimate research out there than I cited if you want to satisfy your curiosity, I agree that further research on this topic will probably not be extensive. Not because of political pressure, but because the consensus among the scientific community is that the question has been answered, and that answer confirmed multiple times. Legitimate scientists rarely continue researching something that will not shed further light on the subject. This is further enforced by the policy statements of several professional societies that I mentioned earlier.

[DanKroh 11]

NC,

 

Yes, a Freudian would have a field day.

 

Glad I'm largely a Jungian.

[sherminator505 10]

"For a group that bans homosexuals, we sure seem to be fascinated by discussions about homosexuality. Almost a fixation. I'm sure there's a Freudian explanation."

 

My interest in not in homosexuals or homosexuality, as these are not internalized concepts for me, but in how we as a society treat homosexuals and the tortured rationalizations we employ in justifying it. I identify myself more closely with MLK Jr. and Susan B. Anthony than Sigmund Freud in this regard.

[qwazse 4342]

NC

 

It's not a group that bans homosexuals outright (at least not until they apply for unit leadership). And our youth are trying to sort out these issues (as much as they are trying to sort out religion, the opposite sex, proper engine mounts, etc...).

 

So, being able to filter the BS from the central issue in light of massive cultural shift is pretty time consuming.

[Mr. Boyce 13]

I think the suggestion above may be true, that the current conditions are so charged that good research is virtually impossible to do.

 

My concern is politics; that's my area of expertise. I'm trying to push past the propaganda. I like clean politics and good government, so I don't like seeing a "rush to judgement" in either direction (pro gay marriage, anti gay marriage) or steamrolling/bandwagon politics. I like fact-finding and public deliberation---stuff that our current media situation just may not much allow.

 

I'm not persuaded much by the pedophile/epebephile (whatever!) "distinction."

 

My guess is that homosexuality is along a spectrum, and that there are environmental conditions that can press a susceptible person more in one direction than another. One curious thought to think is that these environmental conditions can be changed: I recall a Psych 101 class in which we learned that overcrowding mice led to more violent mouse behavior. . . and homosexual mouse activity!

[Mr. Boyce 13]

. . . with respect to religion, I would suggest that far fewer people on the street actually do follow the tenets of the faith they allege to follow. Polls show increased falling away from faith and faith obligations. I rather wonder if the pro-homosexual people are beating on a straw man there. It seems to me that much of the reaction against homosexuality is intensely personal, emotional, visceral; repugnance, not religion.

[Beavah 205]

(This message has been edited by Beavah)

[Merlyn_LeRoy 72]

Mr. Boyce writes:

It seems to me that much of the reaction against homosexuality is intensely personal, emotional, visceral; repugnance, not religion.

 

As a group, atheists appear to be waaay more tolerant regarding homosexuality compared to the general population. Plus, if you look at political issues like Prop. 8, nearly all the opposition to gay marriage is both financed by religious groups (Mormon and Catholic) and nearly all the arguments justifying opposition to civil gay marriage are religious arguments. The pro-Prop. 8 side couldn't come up with any convincing non-religious arguments when it was recently tossed out as unconstitutional.